Pleasanton: Man beaten into coma initiated fight, DA says

By Karina Ioffee

Bay Area News Group

Posted:
02/27/2014 12:00:00 AM PST

Updated:
02/27/2014 08:47:05 PM PST

PLEASANTON -- A Pleasanton man who was beaten up after complaining about loud teens outside his home last September was initially the aggressor in the attack, according to the Alameda County District Attorney.

Earlier this month, District Attorney Nancy O'Malley's office announced that it would not press charges in the Sept. 21 incident that left 51-year-old Pleasanton resident David Lamont with serious head injuries.

Medical evidence reviewed by investigators showed that Lamont either head-butted or hit one of the four young men who had congregated near his house on Middleton Place, who then swung back in self-defense, O'Malley told Pleasanton Weekly this week; a spokesperson for the DA's office on Thursday said O'Malley would not be available for an interview, but confirmed the statements attributed to her.

The District Attorney's office decided to not press charges against the young man because it concluded that he acted in self-defense and was protected under California's version of the "Stand Your Ground" law, which allows victims to defend themselves and use force if necessary, O'Malley told the news site. The law gained attention following the death of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, but exists--in varying degrees--in more than 30 states.

Lamont's injuries were so severe that he was put in a medically induced coma and could not speak for at least three months. The father of two has said that he has no recollection of the incident and has declined repeated requests for an interview. Lamont's wife, Agnes, told Pleasanton Weekly that she disputed the District Attorney's conclusion and said that her husband was the victim, not the aggressor in the case.

Advertisement

The attack, and later the District Attorney's decision to not prosecute, has drawn outrage among Pleasanton residents, many of whom have called lack the of prosecution a "travesty of justice" and hinted at the young men's families' connections to law enforcement or wealth.

But O'Malley said the decision boiled down to not being able to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the young man who hit Lamont had committed a crime and therefore could not be prosecuted.